Lack of Uniformity Shows the Injustice of Gun Control

Published by the Author on June 18, 2010 at 12:01 am > Pro Gun Rights Articles > Lack of Uniformity Shows the Injustice of Gun Control

As I’ve repeatedly and happily mentioned, last year I moved to Iowa and received a concealed carry permit.  The part of Iowa where I live is just a few miles from Illinois, and I am often in Illinois for work and recreation.  As a result, there are some days when I end up leaving my concealed carry pistol at home, since while I can lawfully carry in Iowa and many other states, carrying in Illinois would be a felony.  My thoughts on this type of situation are below:

Many of our criminal laws are very similar, between jurisdictions.  This is because some conduct is universally wrong, leading every state to forbid that conduct.  For example, every state bans murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and arson. No state bans learning to do math, helping elderly ladies cross the street, or baking cookies, as such activities are universally right (or at least neutral).

Indeed, having uniform laws is a goal of our legal system, as such uniformity promotes commerce and free movement between different states.  A lack of uniformity can stifle commerce, since those conducting business across state lines have the burden of learning and abiding by another set of law.

This can be such a problem that courts will actually strike down state laws that are so inconsistent with each other as to unreasonably hamper interstate commerce.  That is exactly what happened in Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S. 520 (1959).  In that case, different states required different mud flap designs on semi trucks, such that a truck driver going between the states could have to change his or her mud flaps dozens of times – or face criminal prosecution.  The Supreme Court very correctly struck down these laws as undue restrictions on interstate commerce.

ALSO READ:  The Importance of Always Carrying

Gun control laws tend to lack uniformity between jurisdictions, and I see that as evidence that such laws are inherently unjust.  It simply doesn’t make sense that carrying a concealed pistol in Iowa and most other states is perfectly lawful, while doing in Illinois is a felony.

Unarmed Self Defense and Disaster Preparedness e-books:

Tags for this article: , , , ,

  • Cory

    It would be nice if Illinois would at least honor other state's CCW permits.

  • Jewish Marksman

    The LAST thing you want is more federal regulation of firearms. Many states have CCW reciprocity, and it works fine. Some sort of model CCW statute, adopted by each state would be good. A "restatement" of common law and criminal self defense law would be good too, again acknowledged by each state in its own time.

    Simple solution to your problem, DON'T GO TO THE CORRUPT STATE OF ILLINOIS. I'm a former resident of that evil corrupt state. The people there are sheeple. They stuff their faces with sausages and pizza, wash it down with Old Style, and are content to live in one of the most corrupt states in the country. I see no difference between Daley and Putin. Blago? And of course we have Illinois to thank for His Royal O-ness who studied at the feet of Illinois residents Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Today's Illinois is an insult to Lincoln.

  • Willis

    Wish permits were like Drivers licenses. Valid in one state, valid in all.

  • Captain Gabe

    A federal law could be made which compelled states to recognize each others CCW's. Further, the 2nd amendment was intended to apply to the states. The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution is termed the "Bill of Rights", but an additional 2 amendments introduced at that time were also eventually ratified. Each of these 12 amendments was introduced, debated, and passed out of Congress individually at the time of the founding. This makes clear that each stands on its own as an amendment to the original document. This is not to say a state can't make laws prohibiting arms to insane persons, violent felons, and so on. It just may not eliminate the formation of a regularized militia with such laws.

    However, that being said, I'm going to address this piece. Here we are trying to restore the ideals of federalism and this guy is advocating the end of it. He's calling for a single national code of law for the sake of "consistency". This is counter to the core intentions of the founders of sovereign states as members of a federation. He wants to dissolve state sovereignty and allow the people of Iowa to compel the people of Illinois to live the Iowa way. How about making gay marriage law "consistent"? How would this guy feel about California forcing Iowa to have to wed same sex couples?

    No. Our nation is a federal republic based on the ideology that the people of each state will decide how they want to live within their borders. The inconveniences of visitors from neighboring states notwithstanding. If this is so important to Mr. Iowa, his solution is to avoid Illinois. If his visitation is important to Illinois, perhaps they will change their laws, or grant him an exception. In any case, it is not his right, nor the right of all of Iowa, to demand Illinois do what Iowians want.

    By the way, I lived in Chicago for a few years. Pitiful place. I left it for Texas.